Friday, November 30, 2012

A group of blacklisted construction workers have launched a
High Court claim against Sir Robert McAlpine, which could potentially
soar to £600m.

They claim Sir Robert McAlpine was involved in an unlawful conspiracy
to amass a database of information against them, which robbed them of
their livelihoods.

The initial claim involves 86 of 3,400 workers in the files of the
Consulting Association, the shadowy organisation paid by major
contractors to collect damaging information about individuals trade
union membership and political views.

The workers are being represented in the High Court by Sir Hugh
Tomlinson QC celebrity barrister to the stars in the News of the World
phone hacking cases.

The group alleges McAlpine had the worst record of blacklisting, which is why it is being targeted in the legal action.

The conspiracy charge means McAlpine would also be responsible for
the actions of more than 40 other contractors that systematically
blacklisted workers simply for being members of a trade union.

Many of the workers said they were repeatedly dismissed from
major construction projects and in some cases suffered years of
unemployment.

The average claim has been estimated at £20,000 bringing the value of
the first wave of compensation claims for loss of earnings and damages
to around £17m.

Many more of the blacklisting victims are expected to add their names
to the action in the coming months, raising the potential total
pay-outs building firms could face to more than £600m.

Mick Abbott, 74 year old ex-scaffolder said: “This nearly ruined my
marriage and it meant that my children were on free meals at school.
“My file goes back to 1964 and the last entry says that I rekindled
the campaign for justice for the Shrewsbury picketers in 2006.

“They have been watching me all these years and passing this information around, blighting my life over four decades.”

Steve Kelly, electrician and spokesperson for the Blacklist Support
Group said: ”I was blacklisted because I was a union member and because I
raised issues about safety.

“Over the years I suffered severe financial strain. The blacklisting
firms should be made to pay compensation for years lost and years in
future.”

A spokesman for Sir Robert McAlpine said: “As legal proceedings have
been issued it would be inappropriate for Sir Robert McAlpine Ltd to
make any comment at this stage.”

A recent Discovery Channel documentary proved that individuals can be
mind controlled into carrying out murder, proving the so-called
“conspiracy theory” that it is possible to create brainwashed assassins.

The documentary, part of the Discovery Channel’s Curiosity series, is particularly relevantgiven the recent claim by
an alleged inmate of ‘Batman’ shooter James Holmes who contends that
Holmes told him he was “programmed” to carry out the Aurora theater
massacre by an “evil” psychotherapist.

Entitled Brainwashed, the experiment was
overseen by Harvard University’s Dr. Cynthia Meyersburg and Oxford
University’s Dr. Mark Stokes. Certified hypnotherapist Tom Silver was
called upon to hypnotize dozens of subjects to test the depth of their
hypnotic state and how suggestible they were.

After a series of tests, the sample size was eventually
whittled down to four participants, all of whom were hypnotized to
withstand near freezing temperatures in an ice bath. Only one of the
subjects was able to stay in the ice bath for longer than 18 seconds,
and he was chosen as the final participant to be brainwashed into
carrying out an “assassination” he was hypnotized into believing was
real.

36-year-old corrections officer ‘Ivan’ was told that he
was no longer needed on the show and was free to leave. However, during
an exit interview, Tom Silver hypnotized Ivan and ordered him to
assassinate a foreign dignitary outside a hotel. Ivan was then given a
fake gun that had the same blast and recoil of a real firearm.

As Ivan was in the hotel lobby preparing to leave, he
was given a trigger signal that the hypnotist had created earlier as a
command to carry out the assassination.

As the Discovery Channel website for
the show explains, “The experiment was a success, and Ivan carried out
his instructions: removing the gun from a red backpack, waiting near the
velvet rope line and “assassinating” his target.”

The documentary therefore clearly illustrated that
individuals can be brainwashed into carrying out an assassination using
hypnosis and other mind control techniques.

A similar documentary was also aired on Channel 4 in the United Kingdom last year. Entitled The Assassin,
the show revolved around British illusionist Derren Brown’s attempt to
turn an ordinary member of the public into a mind controlled assassin
via hypnotism and neuro-linguistic programming, and have that person
“assassinate” a celebrity in public while retaining no knowledge of the
act afterwards.

The man chosen by Brown was successfully mind-controlled
to “shoot” actor Stephen Fry in front of a live audience and was later
subjected to a polygraph test which revealed he had no memory of the
incident. Despite the fact that the show set out to debunk “conspiracy
theories” surrounding the notion that Sirhan Sirhan was a
mind-controlled assassin, it actually ended up bolstering their
veracity.

In a similar vein to Sirhan Sirhan, who many now consider to be a patsy in
the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy, the individual involved in the
Channel 4 show later recalled that he felt like he was in a “shooting
range” while he was carrying out the assassination. ‘Batman’ killer
James Holmes similarly described how he felt like he was in a “video
game” during the Aurora massacre, according to Stephen Unruh, the inmate
who claims he talked with Holmes.

Holmes allegedly told Unruh that the programming was
only broken when he returned to his car after the massacre was over.
Media reports later emerged confirming that Holmes had no memory of the actual massacre.

Holmes’ behavior in the immediate aftermath of the shooting, including his claim that he couldn’t remember what happened, is identical to that displayed by Sirhan Sirhan as well as the mind-controlled assassins created in the two recent television documentaries.

The fact that Holmes was involved in mind control is not
up for debate. During his time at Salk Institute of Biological Studies,
Holmes designed a computer program to alter mental states using flicker rates. Suspicion has also surrounded a package which included a notebook full of violent details that Holmes sent to his his psychiatrist, Dr. Lynne Fenton, who was disciplined in 2004 for prescribing herself and others psychotropic drugs.

The question of whether or not James Holmes was
brainwashed or manipulated through hypnosis into carrying out the Aurora
massacre remains unknown. However, his behavior both during and after
the ‘Batman’ shooting is identical to Sirhan Sirhan as well as the two
individuals who were mind-controlled into becoming “assassins” as part
of the two television documentaries.

What can be confirmed is the fact that numerous
experiments have proven that it is possible to create a mind-controlled
assassin, which is precisely what the CIA did across three decades from
the 50′s to the 70′s under a program called MKUltra according
to the sworn testimony of direct participants given at the 1975 Church
Committee and Rockefeller Commission investigations. That testimony went
largely unsubstantiated but only because CIA Director Richard Helms
ordered all MKUltra files destroyed two years previously.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

Intelligence agencies
routinely gather medical intelligence on the world’s political leaders.
Officially, this information is used to ascertain the viability for
continuation in office for leaders. However, there is a dark side to
such intelligence collection.

Medical intelligence also contains data on the status of a leader’s
immune system and his or her susceptibility to a number of diseases or
other external health threat. Such information can be useful in devising
“natural” assassination weapons, such as cancer, radiation poisoning,
and food poisoning.

The collection of information on medical factors is known as
“medical intelligence.” MEDINT, as it is also known, is defined by the
US Department of Defense as “That category of intelligence resulting
from collection, evaluation, analysis, and interpretation of foreign
medical, bio-scientific, and environmental information that is of
interest to strategic planning and to military medical planning and
operations for the conservation of the fighting strength of friendly
forces and the formation of assessments of foreign medical capabilities
in both military and civilian sectors.”

Intelligence agencies take MEDINT one step further. The
Central Intelligence Agency and Israel’s Mossad, in particular, use
MEDINT to analyze the medical conditions of foreign leaders, as well as
their treatment regimen and schedules, to determine the best methods for
administering toxic dose of medicines, pathogens, or other deadly
agents to cause death, in other words, medical assassination.

Eight years after his death, the body of Palestinian President
Yasser Arafat is to be exhumed. After researchers at a Swiss institute
discovered high levels of radioactive polonium on Arafat’s clothes and
other personal effects and a French court ordered an inquiry into
Arafat’s death, an autopsy will be conducted on Arafat’s body. Arafat
fell seriously ill while being held as a virtual hostage by the Israelis
at his Ramallah, Palestine headquarters. Arafat was flown to hospital
in Paris and died a month later in November 2004. Mossad is believed by
many to have carried out a “medical assassination” of Arafat.

At the same time that Arafat’s exhumation and autopsy was scheduled,
Turkish investigators discovered high levels of DDT, strychnine, and
polonium in the body of Turkish President Turgut Ozal.

Ozal died suddenly from a heart attack in 1993 but the new
information from a recent autopsy suggests he may have been assassinated
through poisoning. Ozal’s widow said her late husband died after
drinking a glass of lemonade. Ozal made enemies of the Turkish military
and its secret “deep state” network known as “Ergenekon.” Ozal was also
an opponent of George H. W. Bush’s “Desert Storm” invasion of Iraq and
he made enemies inside the CIA as well as in Mossad.

Two other leaders, known for their nationalist policies, may have
also fell victim to CIA medical assassins. Indonesian President Ahmed
Sukarno, confined to house arrest after his overthrow in 1965 in a CIA
coup, died in 1970. There is evidence that the CIA may have altered
Sukarno’s kidney medication. Sukarno was confined to Bogor Palace and
his level of medical treatment was dictated by the Suharto regime and
their CIA interlocutors. After falling seriously ill, Sukarno died in
the Jakarta Army Hospital.

After Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser’s sudden death from what
was believed to be a heart attack in 1970, there were reports that he
may have been poisoned. An aide to Nasser, who was close to Vice
President Anwar Sadat, reportedly hid from forensic examiners nail
clippings and hair samples taken from the body of Nasser for later
testing. Upon becoming Egyptian president, Sadat reversed many of
Nasser’s policies, including ejecting Soviet military advisers, opening
relations with Israel, and steering Egypt into the Western camp.

In 1961, the CIA station in Leopoldville, Congo tried to poison
nationalist Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. Eventually, Lumumba was
killed by a Belgian mercenary firing squad in the employment of the CIA.
There were also many attempts by the CIA to poison Cuban President
Fidel Castro. In 1976, the former leftist president of Brazil, Joao
Goulart, died from a sudden heart attack in exile in Uruguay. A former
Uruguayan intelligence agent later revealed that Goulart’s heart
medication pills were altered in order to have a "contrary effect." The
Goulart family’s cook in Uruguay was later discovered to be a Brazilian
intelligence agent with links to the CIA. Goulart was ousted in a 1964
CIA-led coup.

After cases of cancer began to affect several Latin
American progressive leaders, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, himself
battling cancer, suggested the CIA had dusted off its old medical
assassination program. The day following Argentine President Cristina
Fernandez de Kirchner’s announcement that she was being treated for
thyroid cancer, Chavez stated, “Would it be so strange that they've [the
Americans] invented the technology to spread cancer and we won't know
about it for 50 years?" Cancer also plagued Paraguay’s President
Fernando Lugo (later ousted in a CIA-backed coup), former Brazilian
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and Brazilian incumbent President
Dilma Rousseff.

To Bolivian President Evo Morales and Ecuadorian leader Rafael
Correa, Chavez had a dire warning, “Evo, take care of yourself. Correa,
be careful. We just don't know.” After the revelations about the deaths
of Arafat and Ozal, Chavez has every right to be concerned.

Two “hard right” politicians, Joseph Lieberman and Peter King, went
directly to the transnational credit card corporation MasterCard and
arranged an extrajudicial financial blockade of Wikileaks, according to
heavily redacted European Commission documents.

Although the exact nature of the deal between Lieberman, King and
MasterCard are unknown, the two congressmen have actively worked against
Wikileaks in the past.

King, who heads the House Homeland Security Committee, sought to
classify Wikileaks as a terrorist organization and said the organization
should be prosecuted for violating the Espionage act. Lieberman, the
former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, introduced the SHIELD
Act (Securing Human Intelligence and Enforcing Lawful Dissemination) in
2010. The legislation would have made it a federal crime to publish
information “concerning the identity of a classified source or informant
of an element of the intelligence community of the United States,” or
“concerning the human intelligence activities of the United States or
any foreign government” if the publication opposed U.S. foreign policy.

Both Lieberman and King are vocal proponents of the neocon clash of
civilizations agenda and are key figures in the war on terror.

“It is concerning that hard-right elements in the United States have
been able to pressure Visa and MasterCard, who together hold monopoly
over the European market, into introducing a blockade that the US
Treasury has rightly rejected,” said Wikileaks founder Julian Assange
in response to the revelation. “These unaccountable elements are
directly interfering in the political and economic freedoms of EU
consumers and are setting a precedent for political censorship of the
world’s media.”

In October, Wikileaks filed a formal complaint with the European
Commission accusing MasterCard, American Express and VISA of violating
EU antitrust laws when the financial corporations moved to block
donations to the whistle-blowing website.

“On the basis of the information available, the Commission considers
that the complaint does not merit further investigation because it is
unlikely that any infringement of EU competition rules could be
established,” a spokesman for the Commission told Reuters.

The redacted Commission papers also reveal that “VISA Europe and MasterCard Europe is a fiction,” writes John Glaser.

The papers reveal that the instructions to blockade
WikiLeaks’ operations in Europe came directly from VISA and MasterCard
in the United States. Ownership would normally imply control, but VISA
and MasterCard Europe are essentially controlled by confidential
contracts with their U.S. counterparts, a hidden organizational
structure that the Commission calls an “association of undertakings.”

“The scientists said that to dismiss concerns of a potential robot uprising would be “dangerous,” reports the BBC.

The project was co-founded by Huw Price, Bertrand Russell Professor of Philosophy at Cambridge, Martin Rees,
Emeritus Professor of Cosmology & Astrophysics at Cambridge, and Jaan Tallinn, the co-founder of Skype.

It also counts amongst its advisers Max Tegmark,
Professor of Physics, MIT and George M Church, Professor of Genetics at
Harvard Medical School.

An article written
by Tallinn and Price warns that artificially intelligent computers or
robots could take over “the speed and direction of technological
progress itself,” and shape the environment of planet earth to their own
ends while displaying about as much concern for humanity as we do for a
bug on the windscreen.

Far from being resigned to works as science fiction such as in the Terminator films, the threat posed by a potential future “rise of the robots” has never been closer to reality.

The study echoes the predictions of respected author,
inventor and futurist Ray Kurzweil, renowned for his deadly accurate
technological forecasts.

In his 1999 book The Age of Spiritual Machines,
Kurzweil predicted that after 2029, the elite would come closer to
their goal of technological singularity – man merging with machine – and
that by the end of the century, the entire planet will be run by
artificially intelligent computer systems which are smarter than the
entire human race combined – similar to the Skynet system fictionalized
in the Terminator franchise.

Amidst the debate, the fact that the US military under
DARPA is already developing robots for the express purpose of of killing
people has been largely overlooked by futurists.

As we have previously highlighted,
the whole direction of drones and automated robot technology being
developed by the likes of DARPA is all geared towards having machines
take the role of police officers and soldiers in pursuing and engaging
“insurgents” on American soil.

Experts like Noel Sharkey, professor of artificial intelligence and robotics at the University of Sheffield, have warned
that DARPA’s robots represent “an incredible technical achievement, but
it’s unfortunate that it’s going to be used to kill people.”

Policy directive 3000.09 states:
“Semi-autonomous weapon systems that are onboard or integrated with
unmanned platforms must be designed such that, in the event of degraded
or lost communications, the system does not autonomously select and
engage individual targets or specific target groups that have not been
previously selected by an authorised human operator.”

Sunday, November 25, 2012

For a monthly newspaper published from a cellar by two idealistic young college lecturers, the scoop on the front page of the tiny Rochdale Alternative Press in May 1979 was truly sensational.
Known as RAP, the newspaper, which cost nine pence and was distributed by volunteers in pubs, devoted its entire cover to a story headlined: Strange Case of Smith the Man. Inside, across two pages, the report detailed — in harrowing, graphic terms — the systematic sexual abuse of young boys at a children’s home set up by local dignitaries and funded by the Lancashire town’s Rotary Club.

But what really created a stir was the man identified as the chief paedophile: Cyril Smith.
Elected as the local Liberal MP in 1972, a position he held for the next 20 years, the 29-stone 50-year-old was as famous for his weight as his political views.
A regular on the chat-show circuit of the time, he even appeared with Jimmy Savile, the now disgraced BBC disc jockey, on a celebrity edition of the DJ’s TV programme Clunk Click.

Smith died from cancer two years ago but remains, officially, the fattest man ever to be an MP.
Known nationally as ‘Big Cyril’, the unmarried politician had first come to prominence when he bizarrely named his mum as First Lady of Rochdale after he became mayor in 1966, saying he wanted to ‘thank her’ for everything.
He later explained that he was a lifelong bachelor because politics meant ‘he hadn’t had a lot of time for courting women’.

The politician’s predilection for young boys, however, was already the stuff of gossip and jokes in pubs around Rochdale, a close-knit community where secrets did not remain secret for long.
The investigation published in the Rochdale Alternative Press grew out of saloon-bar chat at the Golden Ball, the local pub used for meetings by David Bartlett and John Walker, joint editors of the alternative newspaper, which was printed from a cellar in Bartlett’s home.

With rumours circulating about Smith and young boys for years, and the MP standing for election under the strange banner ‘I am the Man’, the pair had decided to see whether there was credible evidence to back up such allegations. There was.
After interviews with staff and former residents of the children’s home, and senior police officers aware of the allegations, at the end of a six-month investigation the newspaper had discovered nine victims willing to talk, and had four signed affidavits.
With the backing of a prominent lawyer in London, who studied the evidence, the tiny newspaper published its damning conclusions, revealing how the local MP liked to carry out perverted ‘medical examinations’ of young boys in the care home and fondle them inappropriately.
So what was the reaction to this extraordinary allegation? At first, there was mayhem.

Other newspapers and television crews descended on Rochdale, buying up copies of the newspaper. Bartlett and Walker were interviewed. Photographs were taken.
But then Smith, a famous, powerful figure, swiftly announced that he was taking out an injunction against RAP and backed up the threat by claiming he was also suing for libel. Private Eye published a follow-up story repeating the allegations — but that was it.

‘It was a gagging action [on Smith’s part] — to prevent anyone else writing about this,’ David Bartlett, now 74 and living in retirement on the Isle of Wight, told me this week.
‘Smith never did sue. He increased his majority at the next election. The whole thing died down and just faded away.’
Now, more than three decades later, the same claims about Big Cyril are finally being made at the highest level. With fresh impetus to uncover sexual abuse following the Savile scandal, police this week revealed that they have launched an investigation into the allegations.

This development came after Simon Danczuk, the Labour MP for Rochdale, raised the matter in the House of Commons after victims contacted him to tell their stories. He described Smith as a ‘29st bully who imposed himself on his victims, leaving them humiliated, terrified and reduced to quivering wrecks’.
If what the MP says is true, why were Smith’s victims ignored for so long? Did someone cover up for Smith, and if so, could he have been protected by figures in the government of the day?
The question we must now consider is this: was Smith’s depravity indeed known about at the very highest levels of the Establishment, including the security services — and the plight of his victims ignored on the grounds of ‘political expediency’ at a time when he was key to a weak Labour government’s relationship with the Liberals?

Raised by his mother, along with a brother and sister, in a two-room house, Cyril Smith had, apart from a brief spell working for the tax office, been involved in local politics for much of his life.
In 1962, aged 34, he began taking a keen interest in youth matters in Rochdale — sitting on committees in charge of the Rochdale Youth Theatre, the Rochdale Youth Orchestra, the Youth Employment Committee, as well as the governorship of 29 local schools.
As well as these duties, Smith also directed his energies into setting up a hostel for boys from deprived families in Rochdale, approaching poor parents and explaining that their child would be better off in care.

Funded with council cash, as well as donations from prominent businessmen and the local Rotary club, Cambridge House opened in 1962. Crucially, Smith kept his own set of keys for the hostel, meaning that he could come and go as he pleased.
Barry Fitton was a 15-year-old resident when he first had the misfortune to encounter Smith. Fitton was placed in the home because he was from a disadvantaged background — the son of a single mother — and had problems at school.

‘Everybody knew Cyril Smith,’ he told me. ‘He was very famous in Rochdale — he was very involved in things concerning young kids, boys’ clubs and things like that.’
Fitton says he was sexually abused a number of times by Smith. ‘I was embarrassed, of course,’ he says. ‘I felt this was not right, but what could I do? He was an authority figure and I had to do what he said. He was such an important guy, and I was 15 and scared to death.’
Once, he was told he was to have a medical examination at Cambridge House. ‘I thought it would be a doctor, but it was Cyril Smith.

He told me to take my pants down and he started to fondle me. I thought it was odd and not right, but as far as I was concerned, he was completely powerful.’
Other victims have also come forward, describing almost identical abuse, as well as ‘spanking’ sessions when the gargantuan Smith would arrive to discipline boys accused of breaking rules — and then ‘comfort’ them after physically abusing them. When he discovered that Barry Fitton had gone one day to hang around in Manchester, Smith summoned him to his office at the home for punishment, ordering the teenager to take his trousers down and bend over his knee. He then hit the boy.
‘He was big and heavy. You’ll have seen the size of his hands in pictures. Imagine how that would feel slapping you around,’ added Mr Fitton, now in his mid-60s and living in Amsterdam.

‘I was crying and he said “oh, there, there” and he stroked my bottom and fondled my buttocks.
‘There are still people in Rochdale who don’t believe that Cyril Smith was capable of doing these things. I think it should be brought out into the open, not just for my peace of mind but for other people’s peace of mind.’
So why did this not come out at the time? Our investigation has established that there were at least three separate police investigations into Smith — he became Sir Cyril after being knighted by the Queen in 1988 for public services — during the late 1960s and early 1970s.
We can also reveal that the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions also sought outside opinion from a prominent barrister over whether charges should be brought in the 1970s. The barrister advised that there were sufficient grounds for prosecution. But the DPP still refused to act. Could the Home Office have blocked the charges?

But the biggest issue of all is this: If there was a conspiracy that allowed Smith to evade justice, was it founded on the cynical political calculations of the day?
For the fact is that throughout the years that his perversions were investigated by police, from 1974 until 1979, first the Conservatives and then Labour wooed Smith’s Liberal Party.
The first General Election of 1974, in February, saw Labour win the most seats, but no overall majority. The Conservative Prime Minister, Edward Heath, opened negotiations with Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe about forming a coalition government. Thorpe was himself the subject of squalid rumours that would culminate in his trial for the attempted murder of his homosexual lover (he was later acquitted).
When the Heath-Thorpe talks broke down, Labour’s Harold Wilson formed a minority government.

Although Wilson was returned with a slender majority in an election eight months later, that soon collapsed and in 1977 his successor, Jim Callaghan, and Thorpe’s replacement, David Steel, forged a Lib-Lab pact.
Wilson was aware of the scandal around Thorpe long before his trial shortly in 1979, and had asked Special Branch to keep him informed.
Any decision to prosecute Cyril Smith over allegations of homosexual child abuse could have proved just as devastating to Labour as to the Liberals.

The question of who ran the country — so finely balanced because of the lack of a large majority — was at stake.
Throughout these years, Smith, popular throughout the land on account of his bluff Northern manner, was even touted as a government minister, and had served as his party’s chief whip.
According to police and legal sources with knowledge of these historic investigations, there was little appetite in Westminster for a high-profile trial.
The source says: ‘With the Jeremy Thorpe scandal hanging over the political scene, it may have been politically expedient to sit on the matter. It appears Sir Cyril’s influence politically was just too great, and the issue was quashed.’
This would explain one of the murkiest episodes of all in the Smith scandal: the removal by MI5, Britain’s domestic intelligence wing, of police files containing reams of documents and sworn statements from victims of the MP.

In what serving officers of the time believed was part of a sinister cover-up, these police files — ‘thick’ with allegations from boys abused by Smith — were seized by MI5 and have never been seen since.
According to Tony Robinson, an officer with Lancashire Police in the 1970s, the files disappeared after an MI5 agent told him they needed to be sent to intelligence officials in London. After being taken out of the safe at Special Branch headquarters in Preston for despatch to the capital, the files vanished.
‘I looked through Sir Cyril’s file, which was kept in a safe in our office,’ he told a newspaper last week. ‘It was full of statements from young boys alleging abuse. It had been prepared for prosecution. Written across the top of it were the words: “No further action, not in the public interest. DPP [Director of Public Prosecutions].”’

To add to the stench of a cover-up, the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), having initially claimed to have ‘no knowledge’ of any police investigation, admitted this week that it had now ‘unearthed’ its own file about allegations against Smith from as long ago as the 1960s.
Simon Danczuk MP told the Mail yesterday: ‘I am absolutely convinced there was a cover-up of Smith’s abuse. The question now is why, and why are ministers refusing to answer questions about police files full of allegations of abuse that were seized by Special Branch and buried?

‘Smith set a tone in Rochdale that made people like him think they could get away with this stuff, and I’ve no doubt that he was emboldened to carry on abusing children, all the time thinking that he was above the law.
‘The daughter of a victim who’s now passed away has told us her father went to his grave angry and ashamed about Smith having abused him.’
Despite persistent inquiries by the Mail over the past fortnight, the CPS has repeatedly refused to say who took the decision not to prosecute the MP, and why. Officials have also refused to answer any questions about specific allegations against the MP, or whether they will be made public.

The truth is that, as in the Savile case, the authorities seem to have been woefully reluctant to prosecute a high-profile figure, despite investigating the steady swirl of allegations against him.
And many of those involved in the case — police, victims, lawyers — believe the orders not to press charges came from the top, with Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan, Labour Prime Ministers during different parts of the police probe, being involved in signing off decisions not to press ahead with charges so as not to upset their Liberal allies.

Recent events prove that such allegations must be treated with all due caution — which is why the contents of those police files take on such great significance.
So where are the police documents now? Nobody knows — yet.
But what is certain is that, if there was an Establishment cover-up on behalf of Big Cyril, it is slowly but surely starting to unravel.

This was an 'open secret' serial paedophile who abused boys in
North Wales 'care' homes and elsewhere and no one in the Thatcher
government and her inner-circle of aides of which Morrison was a key
part for 15 years did anything.

Currie wrote:

One appointment in the recent reshuffle has attracted a
lot of gossip and could be very dangerous: Peter Morrison has become the
PM’s PPS [Parliamentary Private Secretary].

Now he’s what they call a “noted pederast”, with a liking
for young boys. He admitted as much . . . when he became deputy
chairman of the party but added: “However, I’m very discreet” — and he
must be!

She [Thatcher] either knows and is taking a
chance, or doesn’t; either way, it’s a really dumb move. It scares me,
as all the Press know, and as we get closer to the election, someone is
going to make trouble very close to her indeed.’

Thatcher didn’t know? Are you having a laugh? Clearly everyone knew, including many in the media, and what was that Currie said about Chester MP Morrison? – He admitted as much when he became deputy chairman of the party, but said he was very discreet??

WHAT?

So I repeat my mantra question of the last few weeks. Why did
Jimmy Savile’s close friend, Margaret Thatcher, and her inner circle
and senior ministers like Willie Whitelaw, Leon Brittan, Lord McAlpine
and others do nothing about a known paedophile at the centre of Thatcher’s circle of close aides for 15 years?

Morrison was right in there from 1975 to 1990 and not only
was he not exposed, fired and reported to the police, he was made
Thatcher’s Parliamentary Private Secretary as late as 1990 – her last
year as Prime Minister.

There is an absolute bloody scandal staring the media in the face here, but they are looking the other way.

Why was a known paedophile ‘who admitted as much’ allowed to
stay in Thatcher’s closest inner circle for her entire 15 years as
Conservative Party leader and Prime Minister?

This was Thatcher’s Cabinet in 1983: What the hell were they
doing and the others who came later? What were those doing who were with
Thatcher for the entire period that Morrison was?

They didn’t know what was an ‘open secret’ about
Morrison who was just allowed to go on abusing more and more young boys
with impunity year after year?

For more than a year the CIA has been trafficking 300 kilos of cocaine a month from Ecuador to Chile for export on to Europe, according to recent credible media reports from Santiago, the Chilean capital.

Proceeds from the 300 kilo-a-month business have been used to create a war-chest to finance a Cocaine Coup in Ecuador that was scheduled to be “green-lighted” after the expected win in the just-concluded U.S. Presidential election—expected, at least, by some Agency officials—of Mitt Romney.

It's a CIA “Ay, there’s the rub” moment.

He's a leftist. Isn't that enough?

The machinations were part of a plan to topple current Ecuador President Rafael Correa, who is unpopular in Washington.

An unexpected side effect of the revelation of the plan, which has received little publicity, has been to focus an observer's attention on what's going on in the drug trade in Ecuador lately. The country's history in the drug business, almost as rich as Switzerland's with banks, goes back a long way.

When it comes to efficiently moving drugs, this is far from Ecuador's first rodeo, and the drug network there is one of long-standing, (Wikileaks PDF).

So too is its relationship with both the the CIA and DEA.

For example, when famous CIA drug pilot Barry Seal was first caught smuggling cocaine way back in 1979, he picked up his huge load of cocaine—it was 45 kilos; those were more innocent times—in Guayaquil, one of Ecuador’s three major seaports.

The Americans recently convicted of laundering money for the Ecuador-based network are no parvenus, either. One is a prominent Louisiana attorney; the other an aviation broker in Oklahoma. And both took direction from a drug pilot with his own long pedigree in the drug trade.

Jorge Arévalo Kessler has been flying drugs out of Ecuador since 1989, he states in an affadavit at his trial. He is the nephew of a long-time Mexican Secretary of Defense, and was the personal pilot of disgraced former Mexican President Carlos Salinas.

His American connections are visible too. When finally arrested, Arévalo Kessler was flying a former U.S. military plane that was part of the 1990’s Forest Service scandal, involving planes intended for firefighting diverted into CIA covert drug running operations, the most spectacular result being the C-130 busted on a runway at Mexico City’s Intl Airport carrying cocaine worth $1 billion.

Or maybe the most spectacular result was this: 14 firefighters burned to death in an out-of-control forest fire in Colorado in August of 1994. No planes were available to help. They'd all been leased out on more lucrative assignments.

Why no "Drug Money Times?"

News in the drug trade is almost always surprising, and there's a good reason why: Imagine the world’s huge automobile industry without “Auto Week.”

Or the even more massive weapons business—the death trade—without “Jane’s Defense Weekly.”

Why drug traffickers don’t have a slick weekly magazine reporting on current events—whose head is still screwed on straight, whose not so much anymore—is a question better left unasked by those with no relish for being tagged “conspiracy theorists.”

Because there is no trade publication chronicling the drug business—by any measure one of the world's largest industry—current events come as a surprise.

Example: the current kerfuffle concerning Ecuador led to a belated discovery:

The same drug trafficking network active in Ecuador was also behind the doomed flights of two American planes from St. Petersburg Fl. seized in Mexico carrying almost 10 tons of cocaine. Evidence can be seen in Kessler's indictment, whose 'headliner' is Alejandro Flores-Cacho. Both men worked for Colombian Pedro Antonio Bermudez Suaza, "The Architect, now called the mastermind behind the St Petersburg flights by no less an authority than the DEA.

Bermudez Suaza is one of the world's richest and most sophisticated drug lords, worth perhaps a half-billion dollars. In law enforcement recordings he can be heard talking with the frantic pilot in the cockpit of the second of the two American planes busted in the Yucatan, a Gulfstream II (N987SA) which went down in the jungles of the Yucatan.

Tracing the provenance of the two planes led the Mexican Atty. General's office to where the money was being laundered; the startling discovery that $378 billion in drug money had been laundered through Wachovia Bank in Charlotte, NC…in just six years.

It was a “faux pas” from which Wachovia never recovered, and the cause of the bank’s demise in a forced sale to Wells Fargo.

Nepotism, bane of the drug trade

One of the Americans convicted of laundering money and buying planes for the Ecuadorian drug network is prominent Louisiana attorney Hugh Sibley. A glance through his court case shows his trial produced more questions than answers, and enough sealed documents to raise questions about the privatization of justice.

Apparently, rank has its privileges.

The other convicted American owned an aviation brokerage in Broken Arrow. Lee R Snider, (PDF) the son of a respected local football coach, admitted to laundering drug money and arranging the purchase of eight planes, including a 727, in court documents.

Both Sibley and Snider worked under the direction of a 43-year-old drug pilot, Gustavo Jorge Arévalo Kessler(PDF), who testified he had been smuggling drugs through Ecuador since 1979.

As already reported, Kessler is the nephew of a long-time Mexican Secretary of Defense, who served under Miguel de Madrid, President of Mexico between 1982 and 1988.

After that he became the personal pilot of disgraced former Mexican President Carlos Salinas, now living in exile in Ireland.

Kessler, busted in Mexico several years ago, was flying a Gulfstream II (former registration N914MH) that was one of the "mis-placed" airplanes in the US Forest Service scandal during the 1990′s. Briefly, that scandal involved U.S. government airplanes intended for firefighting that were diverted into CIA covert drug running operations; the most spectacular of which was, as stated, the C-130 busted on a runway at Mexico City’s Intl Airport carrying $1 billion dollars worth of cocaine.

Kessler's "ride" had been "exported" to become a drug plane by an Arizona company called INTERNATIONAL AIR RESPONSE INC said to be deeply–deeply!–involved in the CIA operation.

The jig was finally up after 14 firefighters burned to death in an out of control forest fire in Colorado in August 1994. The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration subsequently cited the Forest Service for "inadequate use of aviation resources." Where were all the planes?

Out of the country, many of them, doing anything but fighting fires.

A personal note: I knew the courageous man who broke that scandal. Gary Eitel was a former military pilot in Vietnam, who went on the become a CIA pilot and then later a lawyer for the Agency. Now deceased, Eitel was fearless in pursuit of the truth.

“Prepping” for the next Iran Contra Scandal

The story of the CIA-DEA's earmarked 300 kilos a month in support of an alleged CIA cocaine coup begins with Fernando Ulloa. Ulloa was an Inspector in the Chilean Federal Police (Policia de Investigaciones, or PDI). Over a year ago, he uncovered a drug ring operating out of the local CIA and DEA stations; with assistance and support from Chilean political authorities and the Chilean Army, the ring trafficks 300 kilos of cocaine a month.

Most cops see the world in black and white. So Ulloa immediately took his evidence to the Chilean Minister of the Interior in Santiago’s La Moneda Palace, mostly remembered for having been destroyed by the Chilean Air Force in the coup which took Socialist President Salvador Allende’s life in 1973.

No investigation was launched, however, and no action was taken.

When 10 Chilean police officials were recently charged with assisting a much smaller drug smuggling ring, the resulting public scandal gave Ulloa the opening (and the media coverage) to publicly accuse the Interior Minister, Rodrigo Hinzpeter, of covering up the much larger—and still active—CIA cocaine trafficking.

"He must be a leftist, too. Put him on the list"

Chilean intelligence sources confirmed Ulloa’s allegation to Chilean reporter Patricio Mery Bell of Panorama News in Santiago: the CIA is using proceeds from the monthly sale of 300 kilos of cocaine to fund opposition to Rafael Correa in next year’s Ecuadorian election.

“An anonymous source from the Agencia Nacional de Inteligencia (ANI) told Panoramas News that the smuggling of 300 kilos of cocaine was in fact a highly sensitive CIA/DEA operation to raise money to topple the government of Ecuador,” reported Mery.

“The operation is similar to the one carried out by the Agency in Central America during the Iran-Contra scandal in the 1980’s, the source said.”

Also offering corroboration for the charge (but not proof) was the controversial former British diplomat Craig Murray, who alleged the CIA has invested $87 million for a campaign to bribe and blackmail media and government officials to prevent Correa’s reelection.

Location, location, and…logistics

The answer to what makes Ecuador important enough to merit its own CIA cocaine coup emphasizes the point made by UPS commercials: Logistics.

Ecuador, strategically situated between the two major drug producing nations of Colombia and Peru, has long been an important transshipment point for cocaine, a fact not lost on previous generations of drug traffickers.

States a U.S. Congressional Research Service report, “The country’s lengthy maritime and land borders have long provided an attractive and relatively unregulated environment for drug trafficking.”

That means—translating the reports Congressional-ese—fewer people to pay off.

According to numerous reports Rafael Correa, Ecuador’s President, stirred the ire of the U.S. when he ordered the eviction of the U.S. military and CIA-DEA presence at a large military base in Manta, one of Ecuador’s three main ports.

So what was at Manta that made it so valuable? On Wednesday, we'll tell you.

Internal emails among U.S. military officers indicate that no American sailors watched Osama bin Laden's burial at sea from the USS Carl Vinson, and traditional Islamic procedures were followed during the secret ceremony.

The emails, obtained by The Associated Press through the Freedom of Information Act, are heavily blacked out, but are the first public disclosure of government information about the al-Qaida leader's death. The emails were released Wednesday by the Defense Department.

Bin Laden was killed on May 1, 2011, by a Navy SEAL team that assaulted his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

One email stamped secret and sent on May 2 by a senior Navy officer briefly describes how bin Laden's body was washed, wrapped in a white sheet, and then placed in a weighted bag.

According to another message from the Vinson's public affairs officer, only a small group of the ship's leadership was informed of the burial.

‘Traditional procedures for Islamic burial was followed,’ the May 2 email from Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette reads. ‘The deceased's body was washed (ablution) then placed in a white sheet. The body was placed in a weighted bag.

‘A military officer read prepared religious remarks, which were translated into Arabic by a native speaker. After the words were complete, the body was placed on a prepared flat board, tipped up, whereupon the deceased's body slid into the sea.’

The email also included a cryptic reference to the intense secrecy surrounding the mission.

‘The paucity of documentary evidence in our possession is a reflection of the emphasis placed on operational security during the execution of this phase of the operation,’ Gaouette's message reads.

Recipients of the email included Adm. Mike Mullen, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Gen. James Mattis, the top officer at U.S. Central Command. Mullen retired from the military in September 2011.

Earlier, Gaouette, then the deputy commander of the Navy's Fifth Fleet, and another officer used code words to discuss whether the helicopters carrying the SEALs and bin Laden's body had arrived on the Vinson.

‘Any news on the package for us?’ he asked Rear Adm. Samuel Perez, commander of the carrier strike group that included the Vinson.

Although the Obama administration has pledged to be the most transparent in American history, it is keeping a tight hold on materials related to the bin Laden raid.

In a response to separate requests from the AP for information about the mission, the Defense Department said in March that it could not locate any photographs or video taken during the raid or showing bin Laden's body. It also said it could not find any images of bin Laden's body on the Vinson.

The Pentagon also said it could not find any death certificate, autopsy report or results of DNA identification tests for bin Laden, or any pre-raid materials discussing how the government planned to dispose of bin Laden's body if he were killed.

The Defense Department also refused to confirm or deny the existence of helicopter maintenance logs and reports about the performance of military gear used in the raid.

One of the stealth helicopters that carried the SEALs to Abbottabad crashed during the mission and its wreckage was left behind. People who lived near bin Laden's compound took photos of the disabled chopper.

The CIA, which ran the bin Laden raid and has special legal authority to keep information from ever being made public, has not responded to AP's request for records about the mission.

Friday, November 23, 2012

Autonomous vehicles and flying drones that would disable
a suspect’s car remotely with an electromagnetic pulse are set to
patrol highways by 2025 according to a number of concept vehciles
designed by major manufacturers such as Honda, BMW and General Motors.

The 2012 LA Design Challenge asked companies to come up with a concept for “Highway Patrol Vehicle 2025,” with the winner set to be announced next week.

Most of the entrants for the competition have responded
with designs that overwhelmingly suggest “patrol cars and motorcycles
would be replaced by computerized drones,” within the next 10-15 years, reports the New York Times.

Honda’s entry, the Honda CHP Drone Squad, includes both a
four wheeled drone vehicle and a two-wheeled motorcycle-style drone,
both of which would hunt down suspects without the need to be manned.

General Motors’ concept, named the Vault Squad, includes
three futuristic vehicles designed to “observe, pursue or engage.” The
NY Times noted that the term “engage” was “left menacingly undefined.”

BMW’s DesignworksUSA studio came up the E-Patrol
(Human-Drone Pursuit Vehicle), which would allow the operator to deploy
an airborne armed surveillance drone which would have the capability to
disable a suspect’s vehicle using an electromagnetic pulse.

“The main structure can deploy three drones. The top
drone sits above the main structure and is a flying drone, while the
other two are one wheel vehicles attached to the rear,” according to BMW.
“In the case of a pursuit during heavy traffic areas, the patrol
officer sitting in the two passenger main structure can deploy either
the flying drone or one of the single wheel drones to chase the suspect
and report back data to the main structure. When all drones are
deployed, the main structure can continue to function. All drones have
added protection benefits in that they can send an impulse to another
vehicle and disable it.”

One of the concept drawings for
the BMW design shows a license plate scanner within the vehicle which
automatically brings up a photograph of every driver on the road,
whether they are a suspect or not.

“By coincidence or destiny, designers at several
companies came up with concepts for robotic, autonomously driven
vehicles on ground, water and air. These future police cruisers —
usually presented as story boards rather than actual vehicles — recall
today’s Predator and Global Hawk drones, stars of the anti-insurgency
efforts. They may give new meaning to those signs that read “Speed limit
enforced by aircraft,” writes the Times’ Phil Patton.

As we have previously highlighted,
the whole direction of drones and automated robot technology being
developed by the likes of DARPA is all geared towards having machines
take the role of police officers in pursuing and engaging “insurgents”
on American soil.

Technology experts have warned that removing the human
element from law enforcement could lead to people being summarily
executed.

Although Boston Dynamics and DARPA claim the robots are
ostensibly being designed to help conduct humanitarian and relief
missions, Noel Sharkey, professor of artificial intelligence and
robotics at the University of Sheffield, recently warned that the true
purpose of the machines is less benign.

Speaking about the Cheetah, a robot currently being perfected by Boston Dynamics, Sharkey said the device represented, “an incredible technical achievement, but it’s unfortunate that it’s going to be used to kill people.”

“It’s going to be used for chasing people across the desert, I would
imagine. I can’t think of many civilian applications – maybe for
hunting, or farming, for rounding up sheep.” Sharkey added.

“But of course if it’s used for combat, it would be killing civilians
as well as it’s not going to be able to discriminate between civilians
and soldiers.”

You can see images of all the LA Design Challenge concepts at this link.

Thursday, November 22, 2012

While much of the media focus on l’affaire Petraeus has centered on the CIA director’s sexual relationship with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, the scandal opens a window onto a different and more consequential relationship—that between the CIA and the military’s Joint Special Operations Command. In a behind-the-scenes turf war that has raged since 9/11, the two government bodies have fought for control of the expanding global wars waged by the United States—a turf war that JSOC has largely won. Petraeus, an instrumental player in this power struggle, leaves behind an agency that has strayed from intelligence to paramilitary-type activities. …

“I would not say that CIA has been taken over by the military, but I would say that the CIA has become more militarized,” Philip Giraldi, a retired career CIA case officer, told The Nation. “A considerable part of the CIA budget is now no longer spying; it’s supporting paramilitaries who work closely with JSOC to kill terrorists, and to run the drone program.” The CIA, he added, “is a killing machine now.”

As head of US Central Command in 2009, Petraeus issued execute orders that significantly broadened the ability of US forces to operate in a variety of countries, including Yemen, where US forces began conducting missile strikes later that year. During Petraeus’s short tenure at the CIA, drone strikes conducted by the agency, sometimes in conjunction with JSOC, escalated dramatically in Yemen; in his first month in office, he oversaw a series of strikes that killed three US citizens, including 16-year-old Abdulrahman Awlaki. In some cases, such as the raid that killed Osama bin Laden in Pakistan, commandos from the elite JSOC operated under the auspices of the CIA, so that the mission could be kept secret if it went wrong.

One current State Department liaison who has also worked extensively with JSOC describes the CIA as becoming “a mini-Special Operations Command that purports to be an intelligence agency.” …

“There are great generals, but this guy is not one of them.” Arriving at the CIA, Lang says, Petraeus “wanted to drag them in the covert action direction and to be a major player.” …

Giraldi, the former senior CIA officer, expressed concern that in these circumstances, the “CIA is going to forget how to spy.” …

Even those readers from around
the world may have noticed that Britain has been rocked by the
paedophile revelations regarding Jimmy Savile, the former disc jockey
and procurer of children for the rich and famous - and what has followed
in relation to Lord McAlpine, the former treasurer of the Conservative
or 'Tory' Party at the time of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

There is information coming
from all directions and it can be very confusing for those who have not
followed this unfolding story stage by stage. I have been on this case
since the 1990s and I'll put the pieces together to make sense of it.

This is not just a story about
Britain, either, because the same networks of paedophilia and Satanism
covertly manipulate the political system all over the world and most
certainly in places like North America. The Bush family are up to their
necks in it.

What even many more open-minded people can't grasp is the almost unimaginable scale
of child abuse, murder and human sacrifice worldwide and how it is the
very cement that holds the global Establishment together, locally,
nationally and internationally.

The bigger picture requires the question: why paedophilia? I can answer
that very simply, but it needs a really open mind to accept it and they
are not the majority, of course. These people are possessed by sheer
evil and thus express sheer evil.

This is why paedophilia is so
fundamentally connected to Satanism - or one reason why. Satanic ritual
ensures the total possession of the 'vehicle' and paedophilia expresses
that possession to allow the possessing entity to feed off the child's
life-force during sexual abuse, as I have explained at length in my
books and highlighted at Wembley.

I have found the same networks
of paedophiles, Satanists and secret society initiates in every country I
have investigated and I have been to a few to say the least. The
networks (in the end a single network) operate globally and right down
into local communities.

At all these levels you
invariably find that members of the paedophile/Satanist/secret society
network occupy key positions in politics, government administration, law
enforcement, the judiciary and so on. I am not saying all those
positions are spoken for in this way, of course, because there are many
genuine, decent people in all of them.

But the networks in the global web cover their own backs by ensuring
that any claims about their activities - and not just paedophilia either
- are 'investigated', dismissed and covered up by members of the
network in the police and other levels of 'law' enforcement. If a case
goes to court or some sort of 'public inquiry', they seek to have their
own 'safe' people appointed from the judiciary to keep the lid on
everything.

Members of the network, or
ring, in all these positions and others, watch each other's backs and
they only get convicted if the barriers and influence of the network are
breached by genuine people inside the political and legal system.

With that background, we come
to the present Establishment paedophile scandal in the UK which began
with the revelations on British television about 'entertainer', Jimmy
Savile, or So-vile' as he has become known.

The ITV television programme exposing his sexual molestation and rape of
underage girls triggered a massive response from other people all over
the country who contacted the police to tell their stories about what
Savile did to them. Police say they are following hundreds of leads and
Savile's paedophilia was clearly of historic proportions over decades.

The paedophile-infested
Establishment and its servile media sought to hold the line at Savile's
own abuse of young girls with a few other people in the entertainment
industry thrown in, most notably two convicted paedophiles and friends
of Savile, former 'pop stars', Gary Glitter and Jonathan King.

But I have known about Savile
since the 1990s when a royal insider and others told me about his
paedophilia and necrophilia (sex with dead bodies); his liking for sex
with little boys; his extremely close relationship with the royal
family; and how he procured children for the rich and famous, including
the royals and top politicians. In other words, the scandal is far
bigger than the public is being told - absolutely fantastic, in fact, in
its scale and depth.

I knew that Savile supplied
former Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath with young boys - I have
been exposing Heath since 1998 (seven years before he died) as a
paedophile, Satanist and mass child killer for most of his adult life.
See The Biggest Secret and other books of mine.

Gradually, as the Savile story
expanded, some of this found its way into the mainstream media,
including the confirmation by a BBC contemporary of Savile, Paul
Gambaccini, that Savile was a necrophiliac. This is why, as I was told
in the 1990s, that Savile volunteered to work in hospitals - it gave him
access to the mortuaries.

See my newsletter, Jimmy Savile ... Doorway to the Cesspit
for far more detail about the Savile story. I am reprising a little of
that background again here because of its connection to what followed
with claims about the abuse of children in 'care' homes in North Wales
and the political figures alleged to be implicated.

Savile was extremely close to the British royal family to whom he was
introduced by the late Lord Louis Mountbatten, a paedophile himself, and
he went on to have a close relationship with Prince Philip and Prince
Charles - so much so that he acted as a 'go-between' during Charles'
bust-ups with Princess Diana.

It would be inexplicable that
this very strange aging disc jockey would be so unbelievably close to
the royal family - right in the inner sanctum - unless you knew what he
really did for a living and that was procure children. The same is true
of his equally close relationship with Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
with whom he claims to have spent many Christmas dinners during her
years in office.

It just so happens that the
Thatcher government and Conservative Party in the 1980s was alive with
paedophilia as will be the present Conservative administration because
they always are. The same applies to the Labour and Liberal Democrat
parties and their like around the world, including, no, especially, the Republicans and Democrats in the United States.

The latest sequence began with
the Savile revelations still in full flow when a Labour Member of
Parliament and deputy chairman of the opposition Labour Party, Tom
Watson, asked Prime Minister David Cameron in the Houses of Parliament
about a paedophile ring operating out of Number 10 Downing Street during
the reign of a previous - unnamed - prime minister.

Watson and Cameron.

His question was connected to
Peter Righton, a member of the vile Paedophile Information Exchange
(PIE), who was convicted in 1992 of importing and possessing illegal
homosexual pornographic material. Righton was a former consultant to the
National Children's Bureau and Director of Education at the prestigious
National Institute of Social Work in London. Tom Watson said in
Parliament:

The evidence file used to
convict paedophile Peter Righton, if it still exists, contains clear
intelligence of a widespread paedophile ring. One of its members boasts
of its links to a senior aide of a former Prime Minister who says he
could smuggle indecent images of children from abroad.

The leads were not followed
up but if the file still exists, I want to ensure that the Metropolitan
Police secure the evidence, re-examine it, and investigate clear
intelligence suggesting a powerful paedophile network linked to
Parliament and Number 10.

Peter Righton - a 'leading child care expert' and paedophile.

Tom Watson said later that 'a
retired public servant had, through a quirk of fate, stumbled on
something that appeared so huge, that almost everyone he'd ever raised
his concerns with had baulked at the challenge' and that 'some of those
powerful people involved in a cover up may well have been - and could
still be - powerful politicians.' Watson continued in a posting on his
website:

Since then though, many
more ordinary people have contacted me about suspicions they have had of
a wider wrongdoing - in some cases so heinous it made me cry.

They have talked of
psychopaths marking children with Stanley knifes to show 'ownership'.
They tell of parties where children were 'passed around' the men. They
speak of golf course car parks being the scenes for child abuse after an
18 hole round.

And they have named powerful people - some of them household names - who abused children with impunity.

Two former police officers
have raised their concerns of cover-ups. Child protection specialists
have raised their fears that the network of convicted paedophile Peter
Righton, the nexus of the group, was wider than at first thought. Others
have identified a former cabinet minister who regularly abused young
boys.

Some have raised mysterious early deaths, disappeared children, suspicious fires, intimidation and threats.

It's bewildering.

It certainly can be, but I have
been researching this subject for nearly two decades and what Watson
says all makes perfect sense to me.

Watson's public statement was
then followed by very weird behaviour by the BBC over an interview for
the current affairs programme, Newsnight, with Steve Messham who was one a stream of children abused at 'care' homes in North Wales in the 1970s and 1980s.

Children's homes and 'care'
homes are the main source of children for the rings and child procurer
Jimmy Savile has been connected to the North Wales abuse scandal, as he
has to others like the one at the Haut de la Garenne on the Channel
Island of Jersey. It is a national and international ring and so homes
are involved all over the country - as abuse victims have indeed
confirmed.

A member of the production group behind Steve Messham's Newsnight interview - not directly employed by the BBC - began to circulate on the Internet that Newsnight was likely to name a senior political figure that evening as a child abuser.

Iain Overton, editor of the self-styled 'independent, not-for-profit' Bureau of Investigative Journalism which led the Newsnight 'investigation', said: 'If all goes well we've got a Newsnight
out tonight about a very senior political figure who is a paedophile'.
See the news story after this article for fascinating connections to
Overton's employers.

Overton's actions began a
frenzy of activity on the Internet speculating on who it could be, but
when the programme aired that night the interview with Steve Messham did
not include the name of the person that he was talking about and was
only an account of his deeply disturbing experiences with this person.

Naturally the speculation
became even more frenetic and in the days that followed the name of very
close Thatcher aide and former party treasurer Lord McAlpine was widely
mentioned on the Internet by multiple sources. McAlpine, now living in
Italy, eventually made a public statement denying that he abused anyone
and threatening legal action against those who named him.

McAlpine, a man of considerable
wealth from the family of the McAlpine construction and civil
engineering company, was very specific in his statement as he sought to
counter the unbroadcast claims by Steve Messham that he was the abuser.

He said that he had only once been to the location of much of Messham's
abuse, the main North Wales town of Wrexham. He said that this single
visit was to the local Constituency Conservative Association on party
business and he had been at all times accompanied by the now dead Stuart
Newman, an agent from Conservative Central Office. He said he did not
stay the night.

McAlpine said that he had never
visited a children's home in North Wales, 'nor have I ever visited any
children's home, reform school or any other institution of a similar
nature.' He added that he had never stayed in a hotel in or near
Wrexham, did not own a Rolls Royce, has never had a 'Gold card' or
'Harrods card' and never wore aftershave - all of which had been alleged
of Messham's attacker or attackers.

'If he does think I am the man
who abused him all those years ago I can only suggest that he is
mistaken and that he has identified the wrong person', McAlpine said.

McAlpine then threatened legal action in his statement of denial - 'I
conclude by reminding those who have defamed me or who intend to do so
that in making this statement I am by no means giving up my right to
seek redress at law and repeat that I expressly reserve my rights to
take all such steps as I and my solicitors consider necessary to protect
my interests.'

What I find strange is that he
is talking about legal action now, at the age of 70 in semi-retirement
in Italy, when he did not take legal action 'in his prime' in the 1990s
when he was very prominently named in relation to abuse at North Wales
children's homes by the now defunct Scallywag magazine.

McAlpine told the BBC this week
that it had been an 'horrendous shock' to hear the allegations, so why
wasn't the Conservative Party treasurer in the Thatcher era equally
'horrendously shocked', and why didn't he therefore sue, when similar
allegations involving North Wales children's homes were published by Scallywag magazine in the 1990s and he was the subject of a banner headline to that effect - and more?

I don't understand. The Scallywag
article could not have been more explicit. And why does he say that it
was an 'horrendous shock' to hear these allegations when similar ones
have been published before and he did NOTHING?

McAlpine was an extremely rich man and in the 1990s he was an even more prominent public figure. He could have put Scallywag
out of business if he had showed in court that its allegations were not
true and this would have nailed the allegations for good and stopped
them circulating on the Internet ever since (without a single challenge
from 'me Lord'). The same with Margaret Thatcher aide and speechwriter,
Derek 'me' Laud, who appeared in the Scallywag article.

McAlpine says he is seeking damages from all and bloody sundry now and yet did nothing when the same allegations were made by Scallywag all those years ago. So please, Lord McAlpine, credibly explain why you didn't.

Later in the day after McAlpine made his denial statement, suddenly
Steve Messham retracted his decades-old claim that McAlpine was one of
his abusers - a statement repeated only a few days earlier in part of
the Newsnight interview that was not broadcast.

That was shocking enough, but his explanation for doing so was absolutely bizarre.

Messham apologised for naming McAlpine (he hadn't
publicly) and he said it was a case of 'mistaken identity', the same
words that McAlpine had used in his statement earlier the same day. Newsnight then made a grovelling apology for naming McAlpine when they hadn't - the name was removed from the Messham interview.

Newsnight was just
about the only BBC news or current affairs programme with a trace of
backbone, but has now been neutered as a result of all this with lawyers
in attendance to dictate what can and cannot be broadcast.

Steve Messham said that the reason he recanted that night on his not publicly mentioning
the name of Lord McAlpine is that he was shown a picture of him by
police 'in the last hour' and he realised it was not the man who abused
him over and over and over decades ago.

Messham said that the problem
of 'mistaken identity' arose because police showed him a picture in the
1990s of the person that he said abused him and they told him that it
was Lord McAlpine. Now they had shown him a picture of the 'real' Lord
McAlpine 'in the last hour' and he had realised that it is not the man
in the picture that police showed to him in the 1990s.

WHAT? I mean where do
you start with an explanation so ridiculous? If Messham hadn't been 'got
at' by someone then I am a Chinaman living in an igloo on the Costa del
Sol. What other credible explanation can there be for such a sudden
about-turn after decades of saying the same thing and never wavering?

We are being asked to believe that in the 15 to 20 years between Steve
Messham allegedly being shown the picture of 'Lord McAlpine' by police
and accusing him of sexually abusing him in an unbroadcast part of the
interview with Newsnight that Messham has never once Googled 'Lord Alistair McAlpine' and seen the pictures of him widely available ever since he said he was abused??

That he never once sought out a
picture of McAlpine of any kind in the decades since his time in the
children's home until the police showed him one 'in the last hour'?

That he didn't know what
McAlpine looked like even when he has been in the news only recently
with comments about jailed Polly Peck businessman, Asil Nadir, and when
he was regularly in the news in the 1980s during the Thatcher era?

When I heard what Steve Messham
had said I Googled 'Lord Alistair McAlpine' and up came pictures widely
available way before 'in the last hour' ...

I mean, how many do you want,
Steve? And yet he never saw a picture of Lord McAlpine in the nearly 20
years between the two photographs shown to him by the police? It makes
no sense whatsoever to me. So why did he say it? Your call, but I know
what mine is.

MP Tom Watson said after he asked his question about the Downing Street paedophilia ring in Parliament:

I'm not going to let this
drop despite warnings from people who should know that my personal
safety is imperilled if I dig any deeper. It's spooked me so much that
I've kept a detailed log of all the allegations should anything happen.

Only a few days before Steve Meesham came out with his sudden 'mistaken identity' apology, he told Channel Four News
how he had broken into the flat of an abuser in North Wales and taken
dozens of photographs of abusers raping boys, including himself, and
some clearly showed the face, he said, of 'the prominent Tory abuser'.

Was he talking about the same man that days later he said that he had
misidentified or someone else? If it was the same man then Messham's
'mistaken identity' story lies in tatters. We need him to clarify this
because it is all very confusing at the moment.

Further, he said that he not only had Polaroid photographs of this famous abuser, but the man had told him who he was and how he would have him killed if he ever spoke out. Click here to see the interview ...

So Meesham said that he took the photographs to police and that although
the faces of the abusers were clear to see the police said that they
could not identify men in the pictures.

Police now say that they can't
comment on what happened to the images because of the new inquiry, but
Meesham's story about the pictures is corroborated by Sian Griffiths,
who worked in the inquiry office at Clwyd Council in the 1990s during
the two inquiries into abuse at North Wales children's homes.

These were the Jillings report,
which was never published because the council was warned by insurers of
possible legal action by those that the victims named, and the main
Waterhouse inquiry which did not allow victims to name who they said
were their famous abusers.

Clwyd Council are now
apparently considering whether to publish the Jillings report in the
light of current events. Labour MP Ann Clwyd is one calling for
publication after reading the contents at the time. She said that 'it
shows rape and torture ... the effects on those young boys cannot be
underestimated.'

Sian Griffiths, who sat at the administrative centre of both inquiries, told Channel Four News that Steve Messham's photographs of abuse were ordered to be destroyed.
She said: 'We were supplied with copies of court documents ... there
was an order made for the books and photos to be destroyed.' This is Sian's interview ...

Why would you order that photographs showing abusers should be destroyed?? I don't know about you, but I have this terrible putrid smell right under my nose. I can't think what it could be.

[A quick aside here, but a very relevant one: When you see that Channel Four News interview with Steve Messham which did not name anyone, how is that any different to the BBC Newsnight
interview with him, which equally didn't name anyone? Yet now the BBC
(licence fee-payer) is forking out £185,000 in compensation to McAlpine
over an interview in which he wasn't named?? Will McAlpine be seeking an
out-of-court settlement from Channel Four News? That's laughable, but the BBC is easy pickings now what's left of its balls have been handed over on a platter.]

There are so many strands to this story and so many unanswered
questions, but some things we do know. The Thatcher government and
Conservative Party was infested with paedophiles and there was a ring
involved that went right to 'Number 10'. MP Tom Watson was quite right
to ask his question about this.

One of Thatcher's significant aides, Derek Laud, was named as a paedophile in the Scallywag
article in the 1990s and, as with McAlpine, he never sued despite being
accused of sickening and outrageous behaviour. Once again, why?

Laud was a speechwriter to Thatcher, many Conservative MPs (including
Alan Clark who has been linked with underage sex) and has reportedly
written speeches for Prince Charles. Laud is a long-time family friend
of current Prime Minister David Cameron and his wife and was a guest at
their wedding.

In this
same period that people like Derek Laud and paedophile Chester MP Peter
Morrison were close aides to Margaret Thatcher, she and her husband
Denis were close friends of Jimmy Savile, the prolific supplier of
children for the rich and famous and, once again, the same question must
be asked about the Thatchers as about the royal family.

Why was Margaret Thatcher so
close to a former disc jockey and all round strange bloke to the extent
that he was invited for cosy chats and Christmas dinner with her year
after year in her time as Prime Minister? What was it about fading
'entertainer' Savile that got him so close to both a sitting Prime Minister and the royal family?

An aging and infirm Margaret Thatcher in Downing Street with current Prime Minister, David Cameron.

We also know that an extremely
close Thatcher aide, the late Sir Peter Morrison, the Member of
Parliament for Chester, has been named as an abuser by residents of
children's homes in nearby North Wales. Chester is only 13 miles from
Wrexham where Steve Messham says that a lot of his abuse took place.

Rod Richards, a former
Conservative MP and leader of the Welsh Conservatives, has said publicly
that he has seen evidence connecting Morrison to the North Wales
paedophile scandal. Richards said: 'What I do know is that Morrison was a
paedophile ... and the reason I know that is because of the North Wales
child abuse scandal.'

This is extremely significant
when you think that Morrison was Parliamentary Private Secretary to
Margaret Thatcher, one of her closest aides, leader of her campaign team
in the Conservative leadership election of 1990 and a deputy chairman
of the Conservative Party. Thatcher had paedophiles this close to her
and record-breaking paedophile and child procurer Jimmy Savile as a
close friend, regular visitor to her country home at Chequers and
Christmas dinner guest.

Did she not KNOW what was going on?

Did not current Prime Minister
David Cameron know when he worked for the Conservative Research
Department at Conservative headquarters between 1988 and 1993, or on his
subsequent rise to the leadership?

This brings us back to MP Tom
Watson and his revelations about a paedophile ring connected to Downing
Street. He said of Peter Righton, who was operating his paedophile
network in the same period that we are talking about:

Within the material seized
at Righton's home were letters from known and convicted paedophiles. The
contact, who has seen the letters, claimed that one paedophile in
particular was of great concern. He said that the paedophile, who worked
with children, boasted of a key aide to a former PM who could help get
hold of indecent images of children. I am not naming the person for
obvious reasons but for clarity it is not former MP, Peter Morrison.

So here we have yet another
paedophile on the inside of the Thatcher administration at the time of
Morrison - and called a 'key aide' - that is yet to be named. How many
were there, for goodness sake? And remember that Thatcher had replaced
the paedophile, Satanist and child-killer Edward Heath as leader of the
Conservative Party in 1975 and so it all went back much further than her
time.

And so to Lord McAlpine, the
man at the heart of the controversy of recent times. He was a central
figure in the Thatcher network of aides and associates for 15 years
between 1975 and 1990. They apparently met in 1975 and he was her party
treasurer from then until 1990 and deputy chairman of the party from
1979 to 1983.

The two worked very closely together throughout the Thatcher years in
government and he led the fundraising campaigns for her elections. This
apparently involved channelling money through offshore accounts and
among the donors were seriously dodgy businessmen like Asil Nadir who
was jailed for ten years for a mega fraud in 2012. Nadir gave the party
£400,000.

According to McAlpine's Wikipedia profile: 'He would later describe his relationship with Thatcher in his book The Servant ... Using Machiavelli's The Prince for his analogy, the "Servant" (himself) is an important part of the success of the Prince (Thatcher).'

Okay, we get the picture, he
was incredibly close to Margaret Thatcher throughout her time as party
leader and Prime Minister and yet he didn't know about the paedophiles that she had so close to her - a fact that is now becoming so clear and we have seen nothing yet?

McAlpine must have
known, to say otherwise is beyond ridiculous given his closeness to
Thatcher and all that went on. So what did he do to stop and expose it?

Did he not warn her about her
close association with Jimmy Savile given that so many people seemed to
have known what he was doing but kept their mouths shut? Are we to
believe that the British intelligence network including MI5 didn't know
about Savile and the widespread paedophile activity infesting the
Thatcher administration?

Are we to believe that they
didn't tell Thatcher or that her closest of friends, McAlpine, wasn't
aware through a multitude of sources what was going on?

So, I repeat, what did they do to stop and expose it? Answer: NOTHING. Why?

Didn't other central figures in
Thatcher governments know - people like Deputy Prime Minister Willie
Whitelaw and Home Secretary and Trade and Industry Secretary Leon
Brittan? Sure they did, but what followed was still more silence and
inaction. Why?

William Hague and Savile.

Rod Richards, the former
Conservative MP and leader of the Welsh Conservatives, confirmed the
widely-known fact that Thatcher's close aide, Sir Peter Morrison, was a
paedophile connected to abuse in North Wales children's homes, and he
also said that William Hague, the Secretary of State for Wales who set
up the Waterhouse abuse inquiry, should have known about Morrison.
William Hague is now Foreign Secretary in the Cameron government helping
to decide which country is bombed next.

Former Conservative Minister
Edwina Currie said that Morrison had sex with underage boys and was
protected by a 'culture of sniggering'. She called him 'a noted
pederast'. This is defined as 'a man who has sex (usually sodomy) with a
boy as the passive partner.' Others have described Morrison's
activities as an 'open secret'.

And yet Thatcher and
another of her closest aides and associates, and one of the central
figures in the party, Lord McAlpine, didn't know?

That is inconceivable, surely?

So what did they do about it?
Clearly nothing, because Morrison was appointed to be Thatcher's
Parliamentary Private Secretary as late as 1990, her last year in
office.

One way that Morrison protected
himself from exposure was to threaten libel actions, just like Jimmy
Savile did and others have done. Peter Connew, one-time editor of the Sunday Mirror, said that when journalists 'doorstepped' Morrison he would say 'print and I'll sue you'.

Connew said that he had
personal experience of the way efforts to name Morrison were blocked
despite him being arrested for attempting to procure young boys in
public toilets. The police were prevented from charging him and Connew
said that 'such was the hush-up that nobody could get hold of the log of
the arrest':

As soon as he was brought
in for importuning young boys in public toilets, the seniors would come
down. That was the reason the officers leaked the details: they were
outraged that the seniors had ticked them off for arresting him.

AND THATCHER AND MCALPINE, HER CLOSEST AIDE ALONG WITH PEOPLE LIKE MORRISION, DIDN'T KNOW?? So what did they do? NOTHING.

Why?

MI5 certainly knew all about the paedophile activities of the late MP
for Rochdale in Lancashire, Sir Cyril Smith, who was not even in
government or the main opposition party. Tony Robinson, a special branch
officer with Lancashire Police in the 1970s, has described seeing a
police dossier 'thick' with allegations from boys saying that Smith had
abused them.

The dossier of Smith's abuse
was kept in a safe at special branch headquarters in Hutton, Preston,
and Robinson said these words were written at the top: 'No further
action, not in the public interest. DPP [Director of Public
Prosecutions].'

No, it wasn't in the Establishment paedophile ring's
interests to prosecute and as always the interests of the abused
children were irrelevant. Robinson said that shortly after seeing the
file he was called by an MI5 officer who said that the evidence should
be sent to London. Police now say apparently that the file has been
'lost' (sound familiar?).

So MI5 would cover up for a
lowly politician nowhere near government, but would not cover for a
massive paedophile ring operating out of 10 Downing Street? And Thatcher
and major figures who were so close to her did not know it was going
on?

Please.

Thatcher and McAlpine - and
others - have a lot of explaining to do about why paedophile activities,
of which insiders were so clearly well aware, were met with no action
or exposure. The case alone of close Thatcher aide, Peter Morrison,
reveals a scandalous disregard for the boys that he was abusing in North
Wales and elsewhere.

In fact, it goes further. Scallywag
said that MI5 took foreign diplomats to the North Wales homes and
secretly filmed them abusing and torturing boys to use the tapes for
blackmail. This is a classic Intelligence modus operandi with regard to
child abuse by the famous and influential - especially politicians that
they want to control.

If all this was just a one-off in one administration in one country at
one time it would be bad enough, but it isn't. I can tell you after two
decades of research that this is typical of political systems and
governments across much of the world. Paedophilia, along with secret
societies and Satanism, is the cement that holds the entire global
network of conspirators and their agents together across 'different'
political parties and apparently 'opposing' factions.

Paedophiles, Satanists and
secret society initiates watch each other's backs, even though they may
be in different political parties in public, or one may be a politician
and another a police chief, judge, journalist or media owner. They are a
cancer within the body politic and the wider human society.

We now have the chance to use
the British example to show the world how it all fits together and
dismantle this global network of horror and sickening abuse of the most
vulnerable.

Watch this space. Things are moving fast and it is going to get very interesting.

LinkWithin

RP

Connecting the dots between different events that go unreported (or under-reported), as a whole, in our mainstream media. Come learn what many do not know, but what many are waking up to. Knowledge is power.